🗣 Free speech under threat?

[pap]

Two recent cases have prompted me to consider the parlous state of free speech in the Western world.

First off, there’s the now infamous case of Germaine Greer being lobbied by trans activists over her views on trans people when she wasn’t even planning to discuss those views. Greer, 74, has now declined the invitation to speak, saying that she is too old to be heckled.

I think Germaine Greer is wrong on trans issues – but banning her isn’t the...

Next up, Glenn Greenwald, the journalist that made his name with Edward Snowden, offers a blistering critique of France’s hypocrisy. The world stood with the nation when Charlie Hebdo journalists were murdered. France has some of the biggest restrictions on free expression in the Western world.

Worst of all, the march took place in a country that is one of the most hostile to free speech rights in the West, as France quickly demonstrated in the days after the march by rounding up and prosecuting Muslims and other anti-Israel activists for the political views they expressed. A great, best-selling book by French philosopher Emmanuel Todd released this year argues that these “free speech” marches were a “sham,” driven by many political sentiments — nativism, nationalism, anti-Muslim bigotry — that had nothing to do with free speech.

The absurdity of France’s celebrating itself for free expression was vividly highlighted by this week’s decision from that nation’s highest court, one that is a direct assault on basic free speech rights. The French high court upheld the criminal conviction of 12 political activists for the “crime” of advocating sanctions and a boycott against Israel as a means of ending the decades-long military occupation of Palestine. What did these French criminals do? This:

The individuals arrived at the supermarket wearing shirts emblazoned with the words: “Long live Palestine, boycott Israel.” They also handed out fliers that said that “buying Israeli products means legitimizing crimes in Gaza.”

Anti-Israel Activism Criminalized in the Land of Charlie Hebdo and “Free Speech”

Along with other measures, such as Theresa May’s planned snoopers charter, and recent incidents, such as Southampton University cancelling a debate (again, on Israel), I’m personally quite concerned about the repeated attacks on free expression.

But then, I worry much more than others about this sort of thing.

Any thoughts on the above cases welcomed. Any more examples enthusiastically invited.

Is free speech under threat?

[CB-Saint]

Is there too much free speech? - in the case of greer, a small minority of activists have been able to push their agenda thanks to social media and 24hr news, when 20 years ago they would never been heard by the vast majority of the world at large. The irony is that having been granted a medium to broadcast their right to free speech, they have impacted someone elses.

[KRG]

On Greer, I disagree with you and the article to be honest. Greer, has a long standing history with making shitty racist & transphobic comments.

I completely reject the notion that not allowing someone a platform is equal to censorship, or free speech. Greer has long profited of her denial of the existence of trans women, who as I mentioned earlier are a group of people dangerously under threat in a society that is actively hostile to them.

Not everyone has a platform to reach thousands of people. Not every can speak at universities, are we all censored? Course not.

Greer’s attitude towards trans people is hateful. Why would you want that person to be given a platform? Why would you want people that spout hate to be given a platform at a university. I would have no problem with people who are openly hostile to people of colour, women, certain religions, or homosexual (or other sexual identities) having their platform removed from them. So, I have no problem with someone having their platform removed if they are openly hostile, and hateful towards transgender folks.

I’ve said before, I really tire of “Free Speech” arguements. Freedom of speech does not mean people have to listen to you. Freedom of speech doesn not mean freedom from consequence.

I find it absolutely no surprise that the people who complain most about freedom of speech are usually old white folk, railing against critics who say “you are saying shitty things about people”. In so many cases, it’s not about freedom of speech, they just want immunity for their bigotry.

[Bearsy]

Is this the one where the old woman was saying bout dudes who have their penis inverted don’t get to join the sistah-hood? I dunno how how it all stands technically & legally i.e. are they allowed to play ladies tennis, but If i meet a trans-woman-bro or even just cross-dress bro, and tbh i quite often go out of my way to ensure that i do meet them, i always treat them like woman, cos i imagine that is how they would want to be treated after going to all that trouble + i am nice like that.

[pap]

KRG; it’s just speech, and it isn’t as if there aren’t competing voices, like your own, that will rebut her.

What we’ve got here is the spectacle of someone having their right to speak taken away, on an issue she wasn’t even going to speak about. Is she persona non grata forever? Is the same true of unpopular views?

Greer was never going to say anything about trans views at the planned speech. In my view, she has the right to say whatever the fuck she likes, because if she doesn’t, it sets a dangerous precedent for everybody else if our opinions turn out to be unpopular.

To be honest, I’d have the same problem with the issue even if she was going to speak about trans issues. If a voice conflicts with the lobbyist group think that passes for progressive values these days, even more reason for it to be heard. This is not an issue I specifically have with that group of lobbyists. I dislike it whenever it happens.

[Burp]

What proportion of the world is TG?

How many do you know/have met and what was your and your peers’ reaction?

Why are people actively hostile to them? Where, when, etc?

Having read your second post I do wonder what halcyon world you would have us live in? “Feedom of speech does not mean …listen to you.” seems to be a straw man argument. Freedom of speech does not, indeed, mean freedom from consequence but denial of the right to speak (and be ignored) is a far worse thing. The reason we old white folk say such things is possibly because:

we are not necessarily bigots; indeed it would seem you are.

we have learned that words aren’t such heinous things as only certain ones said in certain ways that ‘everybody’ likes can be used.

we’ve known freedom of speech - it’s why we as a race have progressed and why we regress when matters cannot be so debated because ‘someone’ (who?) has decided otherwise.

we appreciate that anything weightier than a 30g packet of cornflakes is too much for you young’ uns.

I am perfectly happy to let Greer have her say and have others stand up and, provided the facts support it, show her to be inadequate in her views. Otherwise, it’s just an opinion. She can have it. So what? To suggest otherwise is emotionally and intellectually immature I would say;as an adult should recognise.

Learn to recognise that the world has many more people than you and if you want, speak up against her. As you have freedom to do so.

I am perfectly content to stand in complete opposition to the post you have just made but see no reason to endeavour to debate futilely with someone who is (apparently) so closed-minded as to represent a great deal that is wrong with Project Humanity.

As my US soldier friend says: Peace.

[Coxford_lou]

The big issue is around who does or doesn’t decide what is or isn’t acceptable. Government? Uncomfortable even if you live in a progressive country but big problems if you live somewhere not so progressive.

It’s unfortunate freedom of speech gets used as a political weapon sometimes.

[pap]

Right now, alls I want to know is “who is Burp replying to?”

[Bearsy]

Originally posted by @Burp

What proportion of the world is TG?

IIRC from school, at first everyone is a bird, and every bird, when a bird is born, has 1 million birds in her stomach. These birds mostly just stay there forever, but after a while, like once a month, one of the birds makes a break for it. Mostly these birds excape via the fanny lips and quickly die, but sometimes, before they get that far, the bird encounters a bunch of sperms, and the sperms pins her against the stomach wall, and one of them knobs her while the others watch, and about half the time he forces the bird to be a transgender into a bro. Then after i.e. about 9 months the transgender bro climbs out the fanny lips + goes about his business, but then sometimes, i.e around puberty or later, he remembers how he was raped when he was a bird and forced to become a bro, and he feels bad and decides to go back to being a bird again. But not a bird with a million birds in her stomach, i dunno what happens to all them. Maybe they become sperms.

It’s the circle of life.

[Coxford_lou]

I didn’t understand all of Burps post, but paragraph 9 I definitely agree with.

Where I do have an issue is where some institutions that set up these debates, have a predefined view on what the answer to the question is. So something is pitched as unbiased debate, but actually there’s a stance behind the scenes. A lot of the debate around The Isreal/Palestine crisis seems that way to me which turns me off immediately.

[pap]

The situation in France is ridiculous. I don’t agree with, but can understand current Conservative moves to stop councils from joining the boycotts.

France is telling its people what they can say, and is arresting them for legitimate political activism. I agree with Glenn Greenwald; after Charlie Hebdo, the level of hypocrisy is staggering.

[KRG]

Considering the post directly addresses, and quotes me, I’m going to assume me.

There’s a lot in there I disagree with, and a lot of it is plain nonsense, but as Burp has expressed a wish to not engage with me on it, I shall respect that request.

[Map-Of-Tasmania]

I am all for free speech but wish them folks that are extremist, mysoginistic, racist, prejudiced, homophobic, religious… and generally cunts would just shut the fuck up.

[KRG]

Originally posted by @pap

KRG; it’s just speech, and it isn’t as if there aren’t competing voices, like your own, that will rebut her.

I think you do speech a disservice. It’s an extremely powerful tool, that should absolutely be treated as such.

What we’ve got here is the spectacle of someone having their right to speak taken away, on an issue she wasn’t even going to speak about. Is she persona non grata forever? Is the same true of unpopular views?

See, I disagree with this.

She’s had a specific platform taken away from her. She’s not been gagged. There are plenty of other places where she can express her views (shitty or not). People have said, they don’t want her to have this specific platform.

Greer was never going to say anything about trans views at the planned speech. In my view, she has the right to say whatever the fuck she likes , because if she doesn’t, it sets a dangerous precedent for everybody else if our opinions turn out to be unpopular.

Hmmm, I’m less sure on this. Freedom of speech is something that gets thrown around a lot now, and for me, it has lost it’s original purpose. Freedom of speech is, in theory, a right afforded to people to speak out about the governement or powerful institutions (the church etc.) without fear of reprisal. I’m not advocating locking Greer up and banning her from ever speaking again. But, their should be consequences for what you say. People with an already large platform, shitting on already marginalised people and profitting off that - meh, sorry I don’t have a huge interest in defending your right to spout your hate. That’s not a point specific to Greer, and it’s hardly a new or controversial concept, there are laws against Hate Speech, just as there are laws protecting your right to free speech.

To be honest, I’d have the same problem with the issue even if she was going to speak about trans issues. If a voice conflicts with the lobbyist group think that passes for progressive values these days, even more reason for it to be heard. This is not an issue I specifically have with that group of lobbyists. I dislike it whenever it happens.

My biggest problem with this, is not the theory, but the practice. The reason I said about rich, old white folk is that they are the people that seem to be afforded the most free speech. Your second example does help exemplify this. In socieites like ours, or France or the States, free speech seems to be the preserve of those already with a pretty decent set up in life.

If you are a woman, or gay, or trans, or black, or muslim, your dissenting voice is immediately treated as more hostile. Take Bahar Mustafa, it takes the most deliberately obtuse reading of what she has said or done to see that as threatening. Yet, look at Laurie Penny, Anita Sarkeesian, Stella Creasy - these women face a barrage of misogynist bile, rape and death threats on a daily basis. Yet nearly nothing is done about it.

Go on Facebook, look at Britain First or EDL pages. Openly posting hate directed at Muslims on an almost hourly basis, and the scores of comments on each post, celebrating the death of Muslims and outright advocating the removal of an entire religion from the country. What happens then?

[Map-Of-Tasmania]

I think the quetsion we often neglect is how we convey that with free speech comes a great deal of responsibility - not meant to sound like a Spider-man line, but too often we discuss the virtues of free speech whilst not acknowledging the harm it can do when exploited by those with hate fuelled agendas. Personnally, if we assume free speech is a question of rights and liberty, then surely there is a rational to remove it from those who use it to express hate, or wish to denythose rights to others through either political, racist or other prejudiced views?

The reason? The impact on those who are not yet mature enough to recognise the hate… and are influenced by such vile ignorance.

[pap]

Speech is inert, KRG. It does not by itself lead to action. Someone has to make the decision to do that, so as much as you think I might be doing the power of speech a disservice, I think you’re doing a disservice to many things in making that statement, such as free will, the ability to reason and choose.

On Greer, my view is that she was specifically targeted by trans activists to generate publicity for their cause, and that they’ll try to deny her platforms elsewhere. If that happens, are you going to have a problem with it? I certainly will; if I refuse to bow to majority consensus, it is unlikely that I’m going to be swayed by a special interest group attempting to drum up publicity by denying a noted writer a platform. I’m sympathetic to the issues that trans people face, which is why I signed your petition.

I don’t think we have the same idea of what freedom of speech means. I think it is best defined as “freedom for the thought you hate”. The moment you start introducing qualifications, you need an arbiter to qualify what is or isn’t acceptable, it isn’t free speech, and we’re not talking about the same thing.

Now I’ve been all over social media responding to racist posts and images. Arguments in the open and competing opinions are the way to handle this. We don’t need government to arbitrate, nor do we need one track minded pressure groups setting the discussion agenda for all of society, which is invariably much much larger than they ever are.

I have more respect for someone brave enough to voice their argument, however unpopular, than I ever will for those who try to shut others up.

[Map-Of-Tasmania]

Originally posted by @pap

Speech is inert, KRG. It does not by itself lead to action. Someone has to make the decision to do that, so as much as you think I might be doing the power of speech a disservice, I think you’re doing a disservice to many things in making that statement, such as free will, the ability to reason and choose.

On Greer, my view is that she was specifically targeted by trans activists to generate publicity for their cause, and that they’ll try to deny her platforms elsewhere. If that happens, are you going to have a problem with it? I certainly will; if I refuse to bow to majority consensus, it is unlikely that I’m going to be swayed by a special interest group attempting to drum up publicity by denying a noted writer a platform. I’m sympathetic to the issues that trans people, which is why I signed your petition.

I don’t think we have the same idea of what freedom of speech means. I think it is best defined as “freedom for the thought you hate”. The moment you start introducing qualifications, you need an arbiter to qualify what is or isn’t acceptable, it isn’t free speech, and we’re not talking about the same thing.

Now I’ve been all over social media responding to racist posts and images. Arguments in the open and competing opinions are the way to handle this. We don’t need government to arbitrate, nor do we need one track minded pressure groups setting the discussion agenda for all of society, which is invariably much much larger than they ever are.

I have more respect for someone brave enough to voice their argument, however unpopular, than I ever will for those who try to shut others up.

I agree with the principles Pap, but there are practical considerations - woudl it it acceptable for eaxample for teachers to spout racist rubbish in the classroom? Most would argue no, and that there are enough legislative guidelines in place to prevent this… but what if said teacher is spouting the same rubbish behind teh bikesheads having a sneaky fag with colleagues but is overheard by kids? A person of influence expressing his views freely, yet in a situation where they can ifluence innocents… or what if he is outside of school and seen on TV on an EDL march? Should this person given his position of potential influence be free to express his opinions in all cases?

[pap]

That’s a different thing to me entirely. When we go to work, most democracy is out of the window, and we all operate to an employee code of conduct.

That’s an entirely different proposition than being a private citizen having the right to free expression.

[Map-Of-Tasmania]

Agreed, but thsi is where it gets more complicated… hence the ‘out of school’ part… someone who has developed closer ;loco parentis relationships within work, so potentially has undue influence OUTSIDE of work given their status… under these circumstances, should that person still be granted the right to express hatred and intolerance to inpressionable youngsters?

[pap]

Originally posted by @areloa-grandee

Agreed, but thsi is where it gets more complicated… hence the ‘out of school’ part… someone who has developed closer ;loco parentis relationships within work, so potentially has undue influence OUTSIDE of work given their status… under these circumstances, should that person still be granted the right to express hatred and intolerance to inpressionable youngsters?

I think we can both agree that this would be an exceptional event. The teacher would be fully cognisant of both the breach of trust and the very real chance that pupils will report him. There are frameworks in place that will allow that teacher to be excluded for going wildly off the agenda.

So with professional standards already in place (and no, “it happened outside the school grounds” is not an acceptable defence), I fail to see why we should impose specific professional standards on private citizens completely unrelated to that profession.